Thursday, July 26, 2012

To disclose or
not to disclose! Such is the dilemma facing faculty members who pursue
scholarly activity and scientific research and look to publish their findings
in the public sector. And what exactly is it that they are supposed to
disclose? Does private ownership of the stock in a company related to one’s
area of research count? How about a mutual fund? And what about reimbursed
travel expenses for service on a foundation board whose dictums and pronouncements
affect public policy? Do cheap pencils, pens, calendars, knickknacks, trinkets,
and T-shirts with logos given as gifts count? And why should anyone care about
such activities?

No one in our
modern society wants published research results to be biased, tainted, or
manipulated, especially if such behavior is driven by monetary, political, or
religious reasons. Otherwise, one’s own personal health could be at risk from
faulty medical procedures or environmentally unsafe practices.

But how do we in
the body politic know if such countervailing influences to the general welfare
of society are present? How do we know if a researcher has a potential or a
real “conflict of interest” between the general welfare and their private and
professional gain? The rules of the game are simple. Faculty members must
disclose such activities annually or when a change occurs.

Full and
complete transparency at all times in the pursuit and publication of research is
the mantra of our era and the only operational principle worthy of
consideration. While the actual determination of a potential conflict of interest
– known as COI to insiders –both before and after the fact can be tricky and
couched in legal maneuvers and language, the perception of a conflict is a simple
matter easily determined by the general public. If it looks like a conflict, it
is as far as the public is concerned.

But all across
the United States, too many university administrators and too many faculty
members in particular still don’t get it. For them, privacy trumps
transparency. For them, it’s a real bother and imposition to keep up with all
those foundation visits, externally paid-for travel receipts, consultant
checks, and board memberships – just to name a few items. And why should they have
to take precious time to report them? Baloney! None of this is hard to do,
takes little time, and we have to keep up with the paperwork in any case for
our own private records and tax purposes. I know! I spent many years doing it.

Let’s be clear!
ALL such activities by university personnel must be regularly reported in an
open and transparent manner to the university and the disclosures processed by
the university for a possible COI to be managed, including the curtailing of
some activities. Even if determined not to be a COI, such activities should
continue to be reported to satisfy the transparency principle.

But to be fair,
balanced, and reasonable while hewing to the transparency principle, some have
argued for and put into place thresholds for disclosing certain information.
For example, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2011 lowered “the monetary threshold at which
significant financial interests require disclosure, generally from $10,000 to
$5,000” according to their website.

So at NIH, you
can be bought for $5,000 but not $4,999.99. What nonsense! Far too many people
in modern society have no scruples and have a price tag. Setting an arbitrary
threshold for disclosure of a potential conflict, no matter how small, is not
viable in today’s society. There is only one threshold for disclosure that
satisfies the transparency principle and that is anything above a value of
zero. The public has a right to know and they demand that right, whether or not
a managed COI has or will occur.

In due course,
it was discovered and reported
by the press that Professor Groat served on the board of Plains Exploration
and Production Company and received $413,000 in compensation for his service in
2011. Subsequent reports indicate that Groat did not fully disclose all of
these activities or his compensation to the university.

Initially, UT
Austin declared that no COI occurred, only a failure to disclose, and that the
report was not biased and no further action would be taken. Cary Nelson, former
leader of the American Association of University Professors, reputedly
declared the incident to be “a huge conflict of interest.” So who is right?
Stay tuned. UT Austin has changed their corporate mind. An independent panel of
experts will review the case and report back to us.

Independent of
the final denouement of the UT Austin fracking case – if there ever is
finality, it is symptomatic of the continuing failure of some in Academe to
come fully to grips with the transparency principle in scholarly activity and
research. That principle requires full and complete disclosure at all times and
for all activities with a reporting threshold of anything having a value
greater than zero. Nothing else will work. Nothing else can be justified to the
American public. And it must be practiced with ruthless efficiency. To do
otherwise is to invite condemnation from the public and exposure by the press.

Unfortunately,
the UT Austin fracking report is now tainted, no matter what the review process
reveals and reports. Sadly, we will never know what impact full and complete
disclosure by Professor Groat before the fact and in the publication itself
would have had on this report and its acceptance. Perception is reality in most
cases and facts are not just facts. It’s a lesson we must all learn in our
modern, fast-paced, 24-hour news cycle.

And in the
spirit of full disclosure, I’m not a fan of fracking, but am not convinced
either way that it is a problem. My dislike is based on the sure knowledge that
perfection is an illusion and that fracking will never be practiced with
perfect fidelity to the best engineering principles. Josh Fox and his Gasland
film should remove any delusions we might have in that regard. And
furthermore, should the practice of fracking really be a part of America’s
solution vector for solving our demand for energy?

One thing I am
sure of. The university community must practice full disclosure and complete
transparency in order to reveal possible conflicts of interest and to protect
the integrity of its research.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Don’t stare! Don’t gesture! Those were the terse warnings
given to my son John and me on the morning of 27 September 2008 by our U.S.
military escorts as we stood in line in the Joint Security Area next to
Panmunjom waiting to cross over to the sky blue cinder block
building that houses the meeting facilities for negotiations between North
and South Korea since the 1953 armistice. Sitting astride the border between
the two Koreas, the small, one-room building is dwarfed by the opposing ornate
embassy buildings, each an expensive symbol of the never-ending competition to
be the most imposing and impressive – or, figuratively speaking for the vulgar
among us, flipping the biggest state-sponsored bird to each other.

As our party quietly descended some massive steps and walked
toward the cinder building, specially trained Republic of Korea troops stood
rock hard ready to respond to any incident. On embassy balconies across the
border, North Korean soldiers dressed in greenish-brown uniforms with red trim
glared and scowled down at us, further heightening our anxiety as we entered
the building.

The meeting room itself was plain and dated – nothing
special, but history filled the air as we surrounded the rectangular table used
for negotiations. My son and I both made the step over the line on the floor in
the middle of the room into North Korea. Later that morning, we viewed Kijong-dong or “Peace
Village,” an unoccupied propaganda city, from an observation post and later
tramped bent over through the famous “third tunnel of
aggression,” a tunnel dug by North Korea to move troops into South Korea.

Any visit to the Korean
Demilitarized Zone is a sobering experience and mine was not any different.
How ridiculous is it that such silly games are still being played by world
powers after nearly sixty years? It is a monument to the stupidity of humankind!But such is the stark reality of
contrasting cultures and existence in the 21st century as creativity,
innovation, and advanced technological societies coexist on Planet Earth with
brutal dictators, terrorists, and religious fanatics. Like a Bizarro cartoon, it’s the modern
version of the Dark Ages.

And especially poignant for me was the sharp contrast
between my day visiting the darker side of humanity and the preceding weeklong
tour of the technological advances and capabilities of the Gyeonggi Province of
South Korea. As the invited international
speaker and a guest at the tenth anniversary of the Gyeonggi
TechnoPark as well as a representative of The University of Texas System, I
was invited by Kim Moon-Soo,
Governor of the province, to a formal lunch with him and his leadership team at
the Governor’s Mansion on 24 September 2008.

Governor Kim gets it! Under his leadership, Gyeonggi
Province is rapidly jumping over the industrial age and heading into the
knowledge and high technology economy of the 21st century. The
regional innovation ecosystem he is creating is truly impressive and includes a
contract with The University of Texas in Austin to develop technology
commercialization. During our meal and on the following day at the celebration,
Governor Kim grilled me on how innovation is done in Texas, especially the role
of universities. He wanted to know what I saw in South Korea. What were my
impressions? He made sure that I visited every nook and cranny of the province.

For anyone who doesn’t believe the world is racing forward
and likely to pass America, visit with Governor Kim or the Gyeonggi Province.
See the incredible facilities and the dedicated innovators at the many
universities and the TechnoPark. See the transformation from ox carts and plows
to mountains being moved, truckload by truckload, to reclaim more land from the
sea for industrial development. Tom
Friedman is right. America must be on notice. As anyone with a passport
knows, the world is no longer sitting still. Globalization is real.

But so are the contrasts and so are the demands of human
beings. As China is now discovering with the inevitable slowdown in its
economy, you can’t create a needed middle class of consumers without the
requisite price tag in government reform and change that goes with it. That
ultimately means a proper work experience, a clean and healthy environment, and
all the other perquisites of advanced society. America should not fear China or
the other emerging nations such as South Korea. They will eventually pay the
piper as America has done and continues to do. Instead, we should simply do
what we do best and innovate.

And that means and requires investment in
America. That lesson was brought home to my son and me in the strongest
possible manner as we landed at LAX. Picking up our checked bags at a dirty and
dingy facility, we were forced to hike through a poorly contrived construction
area, exit the security area, find our way to the next terminal, recheck our
bags, and re-enter security before boarding a flight to Houston. Tired and
weary from our long flight, these misadventures after the beauty of the Seoul
and Narita airports told the tale. Yes, LAX was being upgraded and the Houston
and Austin airports were a positive experience, but the negative memory of that
LAX experience still lingers as a harbinger of things to come.

Friday, July 13, 2012

The first few
drops of rain pelted our sweat-soaked clothing and cooled down our exposed skin
as my sons and I trudged along the Colorado Trail toward the Wagon Loop Trail
junction that was visible just ahead of us. Having hiked nearly 8.5 miles up
and down over a number of ridges at altitudes approaching 10,000 feet in a
little less than three hours from the Angle of Shavano Trailhead had not been
our first choice. The three of us were in great shape and looking to summit
several of the Colorado fourteeners during
our vacation, but the weather gods had dictated otherwise keeping the invisible
peaks enshrouded in ugly black clouds from first light to darkness.

Reaching the
trail junction, we turned right along the top of a ridgeline in a sparsely
populated lodgepole forest and headed eastward for the 1.3-mile descent to the
Brown’s Creek Trailhead where my wife would be waiting to pick us up. Ahead of
schedule, we were in no hurry as the light drizzle continued and the distant
rumble of thunder and occasional flash of lightning signaled a thunderstorm on
the high peaks to our West. Veteran mountaineers, we took the weather
conditions in stride and once again tuned out our surroundings as we walked
along the relatively flat ridge.

Suddenly, it
happened! There was a blinding flash of light coupled to an explosion of sound
that nearly popped our eardrums. It was the dreaded “flash-bang”
of a lightning strike right on top of us. Instinctively ducking down as a
massive surge of adrenaline shot through my body, I watched as my son Andrew in
front of me did the same, followed by a bent-over leap into the air and
explosive sprint into a dead run as gravity took over and his boots made
contact again with the trail. My reflexive move wasn’t quite so spectacular, but
I was just as panicked by the seeming lack of trees in our immediate area.

For an old man
like me, running at an altitude of 9,600 feet down a sandy horse trail filled
with rocks and tree roots wasn’t the best thing to be doing. My sons quickly
left me behind as several more lightning strikes occurred behind us providing
additional incentive to keep up the pace. Mercifully, we rapidly came off the
ridge into thicker woods and slowed to a dogtrot. We soon stopped to gather
ourselves and our breaths and to ponder why the hairs on our body had not stood
on end before the lightning strike.A few unprintable curse words mixed with a sardonic laugh or two were
also part of the menu.

In such moments
as these – and I’ve had a few in my mountaineering career, it is easy to
reflect on life and to appreciate the simple act of survival. Such moments also
often lead me after the fact to a deeper consideration of the meaning of life
and to puzzle over the following question: what do I value – other than life
itself?

But life itself
is no longer a simple concept as we accelerate the innovation race and move
increasingly faster toward a new definition of human existence on Planet Earth.
Take, for example, the recent
news that a baby’s DNA can be constructed before birth leading to a
“possible diagnosis for genetic disorders in certain circumstances.” Gads! We
are only a step away from using genetic drugs and gene manipulation in a fetus
to achieve “cures” for such disorders – a worthy endeavor.

But that means
we are also only a step away from using chemical, physical, and biological
means to manipulate a fetus to produce a human with enhanced performance
characteristics. Steroids, doping, and blood transfusions will no longer be
needed to produce the next great athletic performance in the Tour de France and
the accompanying dollars and rewards that go with such success. Will parents
succumb to such manipulation of a fetus? Of course they will!

And what about
the world of wireless information technology? I envision a world in a decade or
two where people shave their heads and cover them with a “hair piece” that
looks like a scalp covered by hair but is actually a very sophisticated
flexible device that monitors brain activity and interrogates our thoughts. We
will literally be able to send commands to an electronic device by thinking
about it. Surprisingly, we are already in the first stages of doing so as monkeys
manipulate mechanical arms by merely thinking about it.

Of course, real
progress will ultimately occur when we learn how to send signals back into the
brain to be interpreted by our brain as “thoughts.” Yep, that will happen
sooner than later! Goodbye iPod, iBook, iPad, and iPhone and hello to iBrain!

And the good
news is that our advanced iBrain device will be both wireless and powered by a
sophisticated coupling to our body’s physical and chemical systems. It’s the
wireless part that’s really cool, to use an old-fashioned “nerdy” term. We will
be able to connect instantly to the Internet of the future and thereby to all
facets of social media by merely thinking about it. My God! Talk about hacking
or the ultimate in texting. But who really wants to know what an old man like
me thinks about the babe in the revealing outfit? And was that last thought
really mine?

“Reading
people’s minds” and participating with them in the midst of all sorts of
physical endeavors will become the ultimate experience for the couch potato.
Jeez, I could hyperlink to someone climbing Mt. Everest and experience what they
feel as they slowly approach their final moments in the “death zone.” We won’t
mention the pornographic aspect to such technology.

And what about
our educational system and the effect of instant access to all knowledge? How
will we measure progress? Will it be done solely by one’s ability to use and
access the new iBrain technology – a sort of IQ test of the future? Will
manipulation of a fetus to achieve the best and brightest iBrain performers be
considered cheating?

My 92-year old
father has seen it all during his lifetime including his own personal
participation in the Normandy invasion in 1944 as well as the invention of the
radio, the television, the computer, air travel, and now wireless communication
and the social media. He doesn’t understand why anyone would want to text about
their intimate or even their silly moments and Facebook exists on another
planet for him. As he would say, it’s all about our values.

So what do we
value as modern society heads for a real confrontation with itself in a world
of interconnected and engineered human beings? And yes that will happen faster
than anyone imagines. Just ask my father if you don’t believe me!

And even more
disconcerting, will it matter what we value?

I don’t have a
clear answer to such questions, but believe that we must consider them as a
society. Unfortunately, I suspect that we will drift into this future connected
world driven by the usual motives of selfishness, avarice, and greed serving as
replacements or substitutes for the evolutionary mandate to adapt and survive.
But do we really want to accelerate innovation to achieve that end, even if
success in global competition requires that we do so? Some, and perhaps many,
would answer with an emphatic NO!

I never made it
to the summit of a fourteener during that summer vacation in Colorado. A
painful bone bruise on my ankle caused by running away from the lightning kept
me from joining my sons a week later as they ascended to the summit of Mt.
Massive, the third tallest mountain in the 48 states. For them, it was a very
long and exhausting day on a mountain worthy of its name. But I did talk to
them using our portable radios as they slogged to the summit. My! Isn’t modern
technology wonderful!

Friday, July 6, 2012

His name: Antony Valentini; his
crime: he’s a maverick physicist who works on a non-conventional research
problem – cleaning up problems with the interpretation of quantum mechanics by
returning to the old pilot wave approach originated by Schrödinger. Is this a
smart move on his part? Nope. So far, Valentini has floated from one temporary
position to another and currently is located at Imperial College London. No
academic faculty position and no tenure for being a maverick outside the
mainstream and outside the boundary of conventional wisdom.

Is Valentini an anomaly? Well yes, but not really. Most
young scientists at the start of their career understand how to get their toast
buttered and simply follow the path laid out by the scientific Establishment.
In their hearts, they want to be risk takers and blaze new trails, but they
wisely recognize that getting established is key to a paycheck and to obtaining
those all important research grants. Should it be this way? Is this the best
approach to creating transformative discoveries? Don’t we collectively have a
responsibility to push young scientists toward independent, unfettered research
instead of the “me too” drill of conventional wisdom?

Lee Smolin is my hero! Smolin, a theoretical physicist and
excellent science writer, tackles this and related issues in the last part of
his must-read book entitled The
Trouble with Physics. I agree
completely with Smolin and his introduction of craftsmen versus seers.
Craftsmen are the whiz kids who are technically the best at the trade. No one
can beat them on a quiz. No one can find the “conformal mapping” quicker or
with more skill. No one can recite the fine points of a theory or an experiment
with more erudition or clarity. They are the darlings. And if they toe the line
and use those skills to push the mainstream agenda forward, they will be
rewarded with plum academic positions, grants and tenure.

So what’s the problem? Isn’t this how it should be? In some
measure, yes – but such behavior tends to produce only incremental advances
with little impact on the overall innovation ecosystem. What’s missing are the
“seers” – those who are obsessed with the foundational issues; those who
question authority; and those who are never satisfied with conventional wisdom.
They are the mavericks. And they are often the ones who produce disruptive advances.
Amazingly, there have been periods of time when research journals would not
publish their research. Some have even been told by senior faculty to drop what
they are doing and join the mainstream.

To his credit, Smolin does a great job of revealing these
sociological dimensions of physics and, in fact, all of STEM. I will not
attempt to summarize all of Smolin’s analysis, but simply say that these
dimensions must be taken into account if we as a society are going to
accelerate innovation.

So what does the science Establishment say about this
problem? Dr. Raynard S. Kington, acting Director of NIH in 2009, was quoted by
Gina Kolata in a New
York Times article as saying “We have a system that works over all pretty
well, and is very good at ruling out bad things – we don’t fund bad research.
But given that, we also recognize that the system probably provides
disincentives to funding really transformational research.” I don’t want to
fund “bad research” either; but who decides what constitutes bad research? Is
Antony Valentini doing bad research? Exactly what is bad research? If you are
out of the mainstream, is that bad?

I remember one day as a graduate student four decades ago
when Professor Dudley Hershbach, a Nobel Laureate, came into Prince
House and gathered up some theoretical graduate students. He had just come
up with a new idea and wanted to try it out. In the end, the initial idea
turned out to be a bad idea, but it led to a better idea from Hershbach. While
I no longer remember the specific details of the discussion, I do recall him
saying that it is important to churn through lots of wrong and even bad ideas
in order to make real progress. His message stuck with me and I think it is a
correct one. So why has the Establishment become so risk averse? Of course,
truly bad research should not be funded, but we’ve also thrown out maverick and
unconventional research! Even worse, we’ve thrown out the young researchers
with the bathwater.

Dr. Bruce Alberts, former president of the National
Academy of Sciences made the following comments
in a speech to that body on April 2003:

Briefly, we have developed an incentive system for
young scientists that is much too risk averse. In many ways, we are our own
worst enemies. The study sections that we establish to review requests for
grant funds are composed of peers who claim that they admire scientific risk
taking, but who generally invest in safe science when allocating resources. The
damping effect on innovation is enormous, because our research universities
look for assistant professors who can be assured of grant funding when they
select new faculty appointments. This helps to explain why so many of our best
young people are doing “me too” science, working in areas where they compete
head-to-head with other scientists who have gone before them – often their
mentors or those who have trained in the same laboratory.

Dr. Alberts further stated that:

Even the most talented of our young people seem to
be forced to endure several years of rejected grant applications before they
finally acquire enough “preliminary data” to assure the reviewers that they are
likely to accomplish their stated goals.

Quoting from Tom Kalil and John Irons from November
2007, “More generally, researchers joke that they ‘have to do the
experiments before they write the grant.’”

And at NIH, the current average age to be funded with a
RO1 grant is 42 years old!

Gads! What have we done to ourselves? We’ve turned the
NASA slogan of “failure is not an option” into a funding creed. We’ve become
accountants with eye shades and sharp pencils making sure every tax dollar is
certifiably spent on approved programmatic progress, blessed by the
Establishment, no matter how incremental.

To the credit of our national science leadership and
federal agencies, the issues of sufficient funding for young investigators, and
transformative science have been discussed and actions taken. The National Science
Board produced a report entitled Enhancing Support of
Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation in 2007. NSF CAREER awards for young investigators
are available. NIH has MERIT long-term funding awards, Pioneer and EUREKA
awards for innovative, transformational research and New Innovator awards for
promising new investigators. The Department of Defense National Security Science and Engineering Faculty
Fellowship (NSSEFF) provides strings-free grants for up to $3M for 5 years.
Using stimulus (ARRA) funding, DOE set aside $85 million to support at least 50
early career researchers for five years at $150,000 per year. There are other
such programs.

Have we done enough to encourage independent research by
young scientists along unconventional lines? Have we brought the seers back
into play? I think not. We’ve only played at the margins with the game of
creativity and innovation while sticking too closely to the established norms.
Personally, I would like to see a granting system based on performance rather
than proposals as I’ve advocated for elsewhere. My Independent
Investigator Grant System would free up universities to hire the seers and
the mavericks knowing full well that funding would follow should they continue
to perform. Whatever we do as a Nation, we must break up or at a minimum modify
the hegemony of our present risk-averse science Establishment. As any competent
entrepreneur knows, without taking risks, there will be no substantial gains.

About Me

Keith McDowell is a scientist and research administrator widely known for his research in theoretical chemical physics on quantum dissipative systems and for his leadership as the vice chancellor for research and technology transfer at The University of Texas System as well as vice president for research at The University of Texas at Arlington and The University of Alabama. Dr. McDowell is a graduate of Wake Forest University and Harvard University. An Alfred P. Sloan Fellow and awardee of the University of Texas Chancellor's Award for Teaching, Dr. McDowell is currently a retired professor of chemistry from The University of Texas at Arlington residing in Austin, Texas. Keith is an expert genealogist with several books and manuscripts to his credit (www.mcdowellgenealogy.com) and an avid mountaineer with over 500 ascents spanning forty years.

New eBook by McDowell!

Innovation! It’s the cure-all for an ailing America. So says conventional wisdom. And the engine of innovation is the American university – the wellspring of new knowledge to fill the technology and commercialization pipeline. But universities and their faculty are under attack as being poor stewards of what some perceive as a new mission. Who is right? What is the real story? Go Forth and Innovate! reveals a personal perspective on the inner workings of the modern research university and its role in the innovation ecosystem.